Nicholas Winterton: I am encouraged by the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone). While it is important to bring pressure on Mr. Mugabe through African states, particularly South Africa, what new initiative might the Government seek to bring forward as a result of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference that is taking place in a few days? Could we not use the influence of a country of growing influence—that is, India—and that of other Commonwealth countries to exert pressure to bring democracy, peace and genuine stability and improvement to Zimbabwe

David Miliband: I can only think that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the speech that I put out on Thursday. If he looks at the section on defence, he will see that it says, first, that we need to enhance the capabilities of European nations in respect of defence issues; secondly, that we need to better co-ordinate them so that when we work with NATO we do so in a sensible way; and thirdly, that we need to ensure that European forces are used in a preventive way. That seems to me to be an utterly sensible thing to do.

David Miliband: There is no question about that; I am happy to provide that confirmation to the hon. Gentleman. I am confident that I will go there with the unanimous view from the whole House that the situation in Zimbabwe is not just an appalling tragedy, but a preventable one. President Mugabe's role in that affair needs to be at the forefront of our minds.

Don Touhig: Veterans of the Malaysia campaign are allowed to accept the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, but not wear it on public occasions such as Remembrance Sunday. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has responsibility in this area, does he agree that the decision of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals decision is unjust, and will he intervene to overturn it?

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the breach of procedures which led to personal data relating to child benefit from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs going missing.
	I shall set out the nature of the data and the circumstances relating to how they went missing. However, it might be helpful to the House if I set out the background first. The National Audit Office, which is independent of Government but answerable to Parliament, has a right to ask for and access data from HMRC in discharging its compliance responsibilities.
	In March, it appears that a junior official in HMRC provided the National Audit Office with a full copy of HMRC's data in relation to the payment of child benefit. In doing so, the strict rules governing HMRC standing procedures were clearly not followed. Those procedures relate to the security of and access to data as well as their transit to ensure that they are properly protected. That information should not have been handed over by HMRC in the way that it was. However, I understand that in this case the NAO subsequently returned all the information that it received in March to HMRC after auditing it.
	It now appears that, following a further request from the NAO in October for information from the child benefit database, again at a junior level and again contrary to all HMRC standing procedures, two password-protected discs containing a full copy of HMRC's entire data in relation to the payment of child benefit were sent to the NAO, by HMRC's internal post system operated by the courier TNT. The package was not recorded or registered.
	It appears that the data have failed to reach the addressee in the NAO. I also have to tell the House that, on finding that the package had not arrived at the NAO, a further copy of those data was sent, this time by registered post, which did arrive at the NAO. However, again HMRC should never have let that happen.
	Although it is believed that the data were sent from HMRC to the NAO on 18 October, the fact that they did not arrive was not reported to HMRC's senior management until 8 November, nearly 3 weeks later.
	I was informed on Saturday 10 November and immediately instructed that comprehensive searches by customs officers be carried out on all premises where the missing data might be found. Those searches are continuing. I asked for an immediate investigation, which was initiated that weekend. I also insisted on immediate steps to prevent this from happening again. Action has been taken.
	On Monday 12 November, HMRC informed me that evidence might have been found of the route taken by the data and that they were likely to be found. However, by Wednesday 14 November it was clear to me that the HMRC searches had failed to find them. I therefore instructed the chairman of HMRC to call in the Metropolitan police to conduct a full investigation, in order to find the missing package. That investigation is still under way. Our priority was and is to find the data. Searches have been and continue to be carried out, including of HMRC and National Audit Office premises, and staff are being interviewed. So far, however, the missing data have not been found.
	The police tell me that they have no reason to believe that these data have found their way into the wrong hands. The police are not aware of any evidence that they are being used for fraudulent purposes or criminal activity.
	I will tell the House what is missing as a result of this extremely serious failure on the part of HMRC to protect sensitive personal data entrusted to it in breach of its own guidelines. In terms of protecting confidential data, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is operationally independent of Ministers. It is established by statute and run by its chairman, Paul Gray, and a board of commissioners who are responsible for its operations but answerable to Parliament through me. Last week Paul Gray told me on his own initiative that given the seriousness of the operational failing he should resign. He has now confirmed that intention, and I am grateful to him for his contribution to the work of government, in HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and then HMRC.
	The missing information contains details of all child benefit recipients: records for 25 million individuals and 7.25 million families. Those records include the recipient and their children's names, addresses and dates of birth, child benefit numbers, national insurance numbers and, where relevant, bank or building society account details. I regard this as an extremely serious failure by HMRC in its responsibilities to the public.
	In making this statement today, I have had to balance the imperative of informing the House and the public at the earliest opportunity with ensuring that when I did so the appropriate safeguards were in place to protect the public, including in relation to bank accounts. Indeed, the banks were adamant that they wanted as much time as possible to prepare for this announcement. I discussed the issue with the Information Commissioner on Thursday, who agreed that appropriate remedial action needed to be taken before a public statement was made. This action has now been taken. I have also sought the advice of both the Financial Services Authority and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and other Departments have also been made aware of the issue.
	Let me set out what we have done. First, the UK Payments Association, the British Bankers Association and the Building Societies Association have been informed, and through them HMRC informed individual banks and other financial institutions, including building societies and post offices, of affected accounts. Secondly, individual institutions are flagging those accounts, which enables them continually to monitor for irregular activity. They tell me that so far they have found no evidence of such activity. Thirdly, individual institutions are also tracking back and analysing transactions on affected accounts to 18 October. Again, they have so far found no evidence of unusual activity. They will continue to monitor those accounts, so that if there is any suspicious activity, action can immediately be taken. Fourthly, if someone is an innocent victim of fraud as a result of this incident, people can be assured that they have protection under the banking code, so that they will not suffer any financial loss as a result.
	The UK Payments Association has confirmed that it is confident that every action has been taken by the banking industry to minimise the risk of any fraud. It has also confirmed that the missing data are not enough in themselves for someone to access a person's bank account for fraudulent purposes, as additional security information and passwords are always required. However, we have to recognise the increased risk caused by these missing data. People will therefore want to monitor their accounts and guard against any unusual activity. The advice of banks is that there is no need for customers to ask for a new account or to contact their bank or building society. However, they should do what they should be doing in any event: checking their bank statements to keep a close eye on their account for any unusual activity; contacting their bank or building society immediately if they see anything in their statement that concerns them; and not giving out personal or account details requested unexpectedly by phone or e-mail. I reiterate that the banks have made it clear that individuals will not have to pay out for any loss in the event that they become the innocent victims of fraudulent activity.
	I can tell the House that child benefit payments will continue to be paid as before. There are already clear HMRC standing procedures, which appear to have been broken. HMRC has initiated changes to security processes and procedures, so they will now take place only with written authorisation from a senior manager and with appropriate protection for any transfer.
	The police investigation continues, although there is also likely to be an inquiry into the missing data by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which has responsibility for monitoring Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. I have kept the Information Commissioner informed. It is highly likely that there have been breaches of the Data Protection Act, which is something that the commissioner will investigate.
	The Government take the protection of personal data, in whatever form, extremely seriously and have therefore put in place and are strengthening rights and safeguards on the use and handling of such data. The Data Protection Act sets out the framework enforced by the Information Commissioner and the courts. Departments have specific controls on information sharing and duties of confidentiality that are being enhanced by amending the Data Protection Act to guard against misuse and provide further information to citizens about the information that the Government hold.
	Last month the Prime Minister asked the Information Commissioner, Professor Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, to carry out a review of the framework in the United Kingdom to ensure the security of personal data. That review will look at Government Departments and other organisations. I can also tell the House that the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, has said that the National Audit Office will also review its own procedures for requesting data to confirm that they remain in line with best practice, and will apply any lessons arising.
	In addition, the House will be aware of other data security breaches by HMRC—including, at the end of September, the loss of records of around 15,000 people in transit by HMRC's external courier and, in the same month, the loss of a laptop and other material containing personal details relating to HMRC customers. I have therefore asked Kieran Poynter, chair of PricewaterhouseCoopers, to investigate HMRC's security processes and procedures for data handling. I have asked for an interim report next month and a full report in the spring. That review will be conducted in consultation with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and a full report will be made available to the Information Commissioner.
	I express my gratitude to the Metropolitan police for its investigation, to the Information Commissioner for his advice and to the banks for their co-operation in working with the Government in taking steps to protect the public. The House will understand that because the investigation is continuing, I am not yet in a position to give a full account of what has happened here, but I will continue to keep the House informed.
	This is an extremely serious matter. HMRC has a responsibility towards the general public, who entrust it with highly sensitive personal information. It has failed to meet the high standards that should be expected of it. I recognise that millions of people across the country will be very concerned about what has happened. I deeply regret that and apologise for the anxiety that will undoubtedly be caused.
	But let me reiterate: there is no evidence that these data have reached the wrong hands and no evidence of fraud or criminal activity; banks and building societies are putting in place safeguards to protect people's accounts; banks and building societies will continue to monitor those accounts, and no one will suffer any loss if they are innocent victims of fraud. I will, of course, keep the House updated of any further developments. I commend the statement to the House.

George Osborne: The Prime Minister says that the first duty of Government is the protection of the citizen; and today we discover from the Chancellor that the Government are responsible for breaching that duty of protection to 25 million citizens. Let us be clear about the scale of this catastrophic mistake: the names, the addresses and the dates of birth of every child in the country are sitting on two computer discs that are apparently lost in the post; and the bank account details and national insurance numbers of 10 million parents, guardians and carers have gone missing. Half the country will be very anxious about the safety of their family and the security of their bank accounts, and the whole country will be wondering how on earth the Government allowed this to happen.
	The Chancellor has to answer the most serious questions. On the question of safety, what contingency plans have been drawn up with the police lest it become clear that millions of personal details have fallen into the wrong hands? On the question of financial security, I understand what the Chancellor said about the precautionary measures taken by the banks this weekend, and I agree with him that people need not contact their banks; but since he has asked millions of people to monitor their accounts, many may well do so. What steps have been taken by the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority to prepare for any potential financial instability?
	If fraud does occur—and of course it is good to hear that there is no evidence of that at present—where will the liability for any losses rest? The Chancellor said at the end of his statement that people would not lose out. Does that mean that the responsibility now rests with the Government, and, in effect, is the Chancellor now offering another general guarantee to depositors and people with bank accounts?
	On the question of how this extraordinary security breach could ever have happened, what is the point of the House passing laws to protect the privacy of people's personal information if those laws are not even enforced at the heart of Government? As the Chancellor himself said, this is the third, and by far and away the most serious breach by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs this year. In August, a laptop containing the personal details of 400 taxpayers was stolen after being left in a car overnight, and 15,000 people's details were lost. [Hon. Members: "He said that."] He did say it, and it is worth reminding ourselves why there has been a catalogue of mistakes at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. When did the Chancellor first become aware that the security protocols in his own Department were absolutely worthless, and what did he do about it?
	We know that it was about 21 days before the breach in security was brought to the Chancellor's attention—incidentally, two days after it was brought to the attention of senior management in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Why did the Chancellor then wait for four days before contacting the police? Does he remember just who has been running the Inland Revenue for the last 10 years? The Prime Minister. Can he tell us when he told the Prime Minister about this fiasco?
	Finally, there is the issue of how we stop this from ever happening again. I welcome the inquiries that are under way, but can the Chancellor confirm that the police are investigating not just the individual responsible for sending the discs, but those above that individual who are responsible for ensuring that the law is properly enforced in Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs? Does he agree that today must mark the final blow to the Government's ambition to create a national ID card? They simply cannot be trusted with people's personal information.
	Since he came to office less than six months ago, the Chancellor has lurched from one crisis to another. Now his Department has compromised the security and safety of every family in the land. This autumn, the Prime Minister said he had shown that the Government could be competent, and now needed to set out his vision. There are 25 million people whose personal details have been lost by this Government. Never mind the lack of vision; just get a grip, and deliver a basic level of competence.

Alistair Darling: I think the whole House will agree that the way in which this was handled was inexcusable. HM Revenue and Customs has well laid down and established procedures which were breached, and which there is no excuse whatsoever for breaching. As I told the House, it is a matter of extreme regret that so many people will be caused anxiety as a result of what happened.
	There are two points. First, the police investigation is continuing, and as we ascertain more about what happened, that will enable us to learn lessons for the future. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked what was being done in the meantime. Senior management have instructed that no information is to be downloaded from computers in this way without the authority of a very senior member of the Revenue and Customs, and that in the event that it proves necessary to make that information available to other people, the procedures will be tightened up.
	It is obvious to me from the information that I have that in the event of the NAO's wishing to audit a large amount of information of this kind, procedures will provide for the NAO to go to where the information was stored rather than its being transmitted. The senior management have tightened up on those procedures so that this does not happen again, but we will obviously want to learn from the conclusions of the inquiry that I have asked Kieran Poynter to carry out.
	The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. First, as I have said, the banks have put in place all the precautions they think they can reasonably put in place to guard against any unusual activity. I repeat that neither the police nor the banks have any evidence to suggest that the information has fallen into the wrong hands or that it is being used for fraudulent or other criminal purposes. The hon. Gentleman asks what would happen if a particular set of circumstances were to arise. I hope that he realises that for obvious reasons the police do not particularly want me to speculate on what they might do in the event that they suspect a crime is taking place, but I can assure the House that the Metropolitan police is very aware of the risks here and is addressing them.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked specific questions in relation to when I was told and what I did. As I said in my statement, I was told about this on the morning of 10 November and I instructed that there should be an immediate, thorough search by experienced, trained customs officers of every place where the disks might be found. That took place. I also asked that HMRC undertake a thorough investigation of what should happen. However, despite being told on Monday that there was every chance that we would be able to recover the disks—which would, of course, have been the preferable course of action—it was clear to me that that was not going to happen, which is why I asked the Metropolitan police to be called in.
	There was one thing I was very conscious of, and which was why I took advice from the Information Commissioner: that before I made a public statement the House would expect me to do everything I reasonably could with the banks to put in place measures to protect the public. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with my judgment on that, but I think I had a duty to give the banks time to put in place the necessary protections, especially when I was advised that that was the right thing to do by the Information Commissioner and especially when I was told by the banks that they wanted as much notice as possible before this became public knowledge. The hon. Gentleman asked when I told the Prime Minister. Within about half an hour of my being told, I spoke to the Prime Minister. The two of us discussed what we ought to do, and I have kept him informed ever since.
	The last point that the hon. Gentleman makes is in relation to identity cards. The key thing about identity cards is, of course, that they will mean that information is protected by personal biometric information. The problem at present is that, because we do not have that protection, information is much more vulnerable than it should be.
	In conclusion, as I have informed the House, this is a deeply regrettable incident that should never have happened, but I am now doing everything I possibly can to safeguard the public interest because that is the right thing to do.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions and I agree with him that this information should not have been downloaded in the way that it was; it certainly should not have been sent in the way that it was, without any readily available means of identifying where it was. It was password-protected, but that was inadequate. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to bear it in mind that the key problem here is that HMRC has clear instructions, rules and procedures in relation to requesting, downloading and transmitting information, and that the individuals concerned ignored those instructions. That is the difficulty, and that is what we need to make sure does not happen again.
	HMRC is operationally responsible for the collection and making of payments. It is, quite properly, independent of Government, because it is involved in dealing with personal data. That is why it is a responsibility, which this House recently agreed to, of a board of commissioners and the chairman. They are accountable to Parliament through me, which is why I am making this statement today, but there is no doubt in my mind that what we have here is an extremely serious breach. It should never have happened, and the problem is that individuals within HMRC ignored the procedures that were there. That should not have happened and that is what we need to put right.

John McFall: Paul Gray, the chief executive of HMRC, has always been co-operative and helpful to the Treasury Committee in our dealings; however, he is correct today to resign from his post. This gives rise to the question, are data safe with Government agencies? No doubt the Treasury Committee will look at this issue, at the internal security procedures operated by Departments, and at the level at which the security is signed off. Why does such sensitive information need to be shuffled around? Why cannot the NAO undertake its investigations at the Departments? No doubt the Treasury Committee will want to look at this issue, and I ask the Chancellor for his full co-operation in that exercise, so that we investigate this matter thoroughly and ensure that never, ever again does such a situation arise.

Alistair Darling: I certainly welcome any inquiry by the Treasury Committee. My right hon. Friend asks me about the audit procedures and as I told the House earlier, Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, is reviewing the procedures relating to how information is handled and what he requests. On child benefit, my understanding is that normally, the NAO would seek to investigate a comparatively small number of cases—perhaps as small as a dozen or so—in order to be sure that Revenue and Customs was following the correct procedures and paying them. It is not at all clear to me why 7 million records would be necessary, or whether it would be possible for anyone actually to look at 7 million records and properly audit them.
	I also agree with my right hon. Friend—I said this in reply to the shadow Chancellor—that if large-scale information is sought, as I understand it, the internal procedures of the Revenue and Customs require that the auditor would go to where these things are held, in Washington and the north-east, so that he could look at that information without it being taken out of a secure building. I understand that those procedures are in place. One of the things that the inquiry will have to find out is why those established procedures were breached by the individuals concerned.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Chancellor said that he reckoned that the Department was independent of his Department so in that sense it was enough for Paul Gray to resign, but it was to the Chancellor that HMRC came; it was he—rightly—who took the decision for a full search and then to call in the police, and it was he who has had to come to the Dispatch Box to explain it all. Does not that make it certain that he and his Department have absolute overall responsibility, so if the information gets into the wrong hands, would he consider it right that either he or his Financial Secretary should take the decision to resign?

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I know that he takes a close interest in rail freight matters. High Speed 1 might be appropriate for freight usage. The Government's hope is that decisions about access to High Speed 1 will be taken on a completely commercial basis. He is right to point out that the recent history of through-tunnel rail freight has been a difficult one, certainly in relation to the charging regime for travel through the tunnel. The Government have been trying to work that problem through with the owners and the rail freight companies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no reason why domestic freight should not use High Speed 1 in the future.
	The Bill amends the statutory definition of "development agreement" in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 to include the word "operation". We are now starting to see the full extent of this project's value to the UK taxpayer. The financial receipts from any sales are likely to be significant, but the benefits of the rail link are wider than any simple financial transaction. LCR estimates that the new line is facilitating £10 billion in private investment in some of the most deprived areas of the south-east. King's Cross Central is a 27 hectare former goods yard that will accommodate new build homes and reused warehouses, shops, offices and leisure facilities. Taxpayers will receive an agreed proportion of the proceeds from that development.
	In Stratford, a 30 million sq ft development, including a new station, shopping centre and accommodation for athletes, will support the successful staging of the Olympic games in 2012. Journey times to the continent have been cut by at least 40 minutes, compared with before HS1 was built, and through tickets are now available from regional stations across the UK.

Tom Harris: Take, for example, the journey from London to Manchester as it stands currently. Even without high-speed lines, rail already has the majority share in that market. Once the west coast main line is finally upgraded, I expect that advantage to increase.
	The Government are not in the business of telling airline passengers that they should not use airlines. We want to ensure that realistic alternatives are available when people make a judgment about which form of travel to use. Thanks to our investment in the wider rail industry over the past 10 years, and in the west coast main line in particular, people in this country have a realistic choice of whether to travel by train, rail or car. That was not always the case. Before 1997, and certainly 20 years ago, most people did not have a choice between rail travel and air travel. They now have a realistic alternative to travelling by air, and more are choosing railways without the high-speed lines even being in existence.

Stephen Hammond: Today we have the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill. It is a small Bill of only six clauses; none the less it is a difficult Bill and to some people almost impenetrable. However, behind it lies a unique British achievement: the channel tunnel rail link or High Speed 1, as we are now to call it. The first service left St. Pancras last week to universal acclaim, achieving recognition from all the national newspapers; indeed, even the  Evening  Standard put it on its front page. Those of us who attended the opening ceremony the previous week will remember the excitement and sense of achievement that we experienced that night for a long time. The crowning achievement is surely the reinstatement of the single span roof.
	As the Minister rightly said, the contributions of Lord Heseltine and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are to be saluted. We on the Conservative Benches should also like to offer our congratulations to Mr. Rob Holden of London and Continental Railways and his team at the channel tunnel rail link on completing the project on time and on budget. We would also want to salute, as did the Minister, the efforts of all those who moved operations seamlessly overnight from Waterloo to St. Pancras. That was a major success and when the first train rolled out last week, it was a huge achievement.
	High Speed 1 now stretches from the mouth of the channel right the way through the Kent countryside into east London via Stratford, terminating at St. Pancras—a total of 109 km or 67.7 miles. Although the London St. Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord service will be the main focus at the moment, we should not forget that about 40 per cent. of the capacity is being reserved for high-speed domestic services. Clearly, that will be a huge advantage for the commuters of Kent.

Stephen Hammond: Thanks, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman that on 20 February 1996, it was the Conservative Government who had the vision and awarded the contract to put that in place. They awarded the contract to London and Continental Railways Limited to build and operate the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Who would have dreamed that we would see 186 mph travel from the UK to France and beyond, as well as on domestic services. Certainly anyone using domestic services at the moment could hardly have dreamed of that.

Rob Marris: Given the vision of the Conservative Government—I absolutely salute that vision for the channel tunnel—what are the hon. Gentleman's views on the possibility of high speed 3? If his party were in government, would they support it and, if so, would they put any public money into it?

Stephen Hammond: I am delighted to respond to that intervention. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen student of our policies, not to mention explanatory notes, so I am somewhat surprised that he does not seem to have noticed that we have already said and confirmed—it is in Conservative party policy—that an incoming Conservative Government will conduct a feasibility study for HS3. As I say, we have confirmed it; it is a matter of policy.
	As I understand it, the Bill is intended to make minor amendments to current arrangements. There is a belief that the structure of London and Continental Railways, which has contributed to success in construction and delivering the project, may not be the best structure on an ongoing basis and may not be the best structure for LCR's operational purposes. As the Minister said, the Government and LCR have thus undertaken an evaluation of available restructuring options. The Bill is being enacted so that that process can happen.
	As the Minister stated earlier, the Government believe that splitting LCR into its component businesses is the best way forward, so the Bill introduces a small number of measures to clarify the legislative and regulatory status of High Speed 1. The Government believe that, without their intervention and the Bill, there would be risk of legal and regulatory uncertainty. In Committee, we will look to the Government to clarify, quantify and justify that position.

Stephen Hammond: Network Rail will be able to bid for it. As the Minister said, it would be wrong for anyone in the House to prejudice the outcome of the bidding process.
	The Government assume that if the assets of LCR were sold, their value— without this legislation—might be sub-optimal due to the lack of clarity about the funding arrangements for capital construction and the future. One of the things that we will be keen to learn from the Minister is what guarantees the Secretary of State has given with regard to the construction phase. Will the Bill allow the assets to be sold with those guarantees? Does it imply that if London and Continental Railways assets were sold, the debt would remain guaranteed by the Government and the original funders?
	The Minister was right to say that clause 1 implied the existence of a sufficient level of uncertainty over whether the powers that the Secretary of State had to fund the project during the construction phase would continue into the operational phase. We shall want the Minister to clarify at some point whether he means that those powers apply to the whole channel tunnel rail link, or just to the channel tunnel rail link and LCR after the construction phase. Does the uncertainty stem from some ambiguity in the original Act, and why did that Act not cover the post-construction phase? That is an important point because, as the Minister well knows, later this week a Bill that is very analogous to the Bill will be considered in Committee, and we need to be sure that the provisions in this Bill cannot be applied to the construction phase of another major project.
	I assume that the import and intent of the Bill will not affect a net change in the overall cost to the public exchequer, but merely confirm what is already the case. However, questions arise from Secretary of State's power to continue to fund the channel tunnel rail link and the trains that run on its infrastructure. Does that imply that the subsidy applies to both infrastructure managers and train operating companies? Will the Minister confirm that there will be no overall change in public cost, but merely a restatement of the guarantee? Why is it envisaged that the Government will subsidise the operating cost, and for how long is that envisaged to last? If Eurostar train operations succeed or at least break even, why should the public purse continue to operate a public subsidy?
	All that arises in clause 1. Although the Bill itself is small, we shall have a fair amount of work to do in Committee.
	Clause 2 appears to repeal some of the existing provisions in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 relating to the Office of Rail Regulation which it is claimed are no longer necessary. Again, we shall seek clarification of the exact extent of what the Government are doing. Under section 16(1) of the 1996 Act, any operator of CTRL is not required to hold a licence under the Railways Act 1993, and therefore access arrangements relating to the channel tunnel rail link do not generally require the prior approval of the ORR. We shall seek elucidation of why the operator is not required to hold a licence. Will that continue into the operational phase, and, if so, does the Minister expect the position to change? Do the access arrangements that currently do not need prior approval not need it because they have been agreed, or because they will be regulated by some different method?
	I understand that all access contracts in relation to the channel tunnel rail link are outside the regulation of the ORR under the terms of the 1993 Act. How long does the Minister intend that to continue, and is it really desirable? What impact will it have on the ORR's normal powers in relation to safety and performance? All that is covered by clause 2, which is short but gives rise to a number of issues.
	Clause 3 makes some changes to the ORR's duties in relation to the channel tunnel rail link. It gives specific powers to ensure that functions in connection with the national rail network which the ORR formerly exercised to prevent the construction project from being adversely affected are now changed. It is a small repealing measure. As the Minister said earlier, clause 4 allows the ORR to charge a fee to the operators of the channel tunnel rail link in proportion to the cost that is incurred.
	Although this is a relatively small Bill, clauses 1,2 and 3 will require scrutiny in Committee. As I said earlier, however, behind the Bill stands a unique British achievement, and the Minister was right to praise it. Conservative Members also salute that unique achievement.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his offer of a briefing prior to the Committee stage. I hope it will be enlightening, and that it might raise the scales from my eyes with regard to some of the Bill's more technical points. We intend to aid the Bill's parliamentary progress and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) has said, this is a short Bill that is uncontroversial in the House. It does have some significance, however, certainly for people such as my constituents in Norwich who are trying to use Stratford station in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman); to get better access to Eurostar and services to north Kent. I want to probe a little the remark made in response to his intervention by my hon. Friend the Minister, who said that the Bill will make no difference to the development of that.
	I strongly support the Bill, particularly the part that confirms section 6(1) of the Railways Act 2005 giving the Secretary of State the power to
	"provide, or agree to provide, financial assistance to any person—
	(a) for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development of railway services or railway assets; or
	(b) for any other purpose relating to a railway or to railway services."
	As I understand it, clause 1 of the Bill confirms for the avoidance of doubt that the Secretary of State can following completion of the construction project continue to provide financial assistance to CTRL—the channel tunnel rail link—under the powers of the 2005 Act. That is one of the clarifications that the Bill seeks to make.
	In particular, the Bill confirms the Secretary of State's power to provide capital funds through a range of different mechanisms for the CTRL project. I understand why my hon. Friend the Minister therefore said that the Bill was not associated with a high-speed link such as High Speed 3 or HS4—or, in the case of Norwich, probably HS15, when it comes around. He might be interested to know that the leader of the Liberal Democrats on Norwich city council is arguing for us to get a full high-speed link—that HS15 project—right away, but I understand the public expenditure constraints my hon. Friend the Minister described.
	The Eddington report's statement that we should be trying to get far more efficiency out of our existing network is of relevance to the Bill and this issue, and in particular the question of the interchange between the main line service between Norwich and London—and other services coming into Stratford—and Eurostar and the Kent system. It seems to me—perhaps this will be clarified in the wind-up—that the power that the Bill confirms allowing the Secretary of State to require that money be spent on improving this network and the assets related to it could in principle, if the Secretary of State so desires, apply to creating out of Stratford station an effective high-quality interchange. I want to elaborate on that point.
	The Secretary of State should use that power to invest capital in the vital interchange station at Stratford, and in particular either to construct a travolator—it would have been far better had that been established earlier—or another convenient walkway, such as the eastern egress walkway which is currently being talked about, from the main line and other services at Stratford to the new international station on the Eurostar route. As other interventions have suggested, that will also be the connection to the new service to north Kent. Therefore, this is not simply to do with a high-speed service from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet or from Ashford; it is also to do with an interlink for people travelling from East Anglia to Kent. If they have that interchange at Stratford, the services will be improved.
	There is discussion and argument about what the exact distance of the interchange will be. I understood that it might be 400 m to 600 m, but I heard the Minister say he thought it might be 200 m. It will in any case be a relatively short distance, but it does not seem to me to be an unreasonable demand that people travelling internationally—going on holiday, perhaps—should not have to lug their bags about and should instead have the kind of automatic transit that we see in every airport in the country. My hon. Friend the Minister might confirm whether I am right, but that does not seem to me to fall outside the Secretary of State's remit in terms of the capital investment they could require.
	Of course, the case for investing in the interchange station is very powerful. There are three central arguments. First, as I said a moment ago, it would increase use from East Anglia and some parts of London, including the Canary Wharf area—that is not entirely insignificant when looking at business on the Eurostar service—of both Eurostar and the service to north and east Kent. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon said, that represents about 40 per cent. of the capacity of that line. That increased use would be a real benefit to millions of people, certainly including my constituents but also many others throughout the whole east and south of the country.
	The second case for investing in the interchange station is that it would increase revenue to Eurostar and put the Government in a stronger position to gain a proper return on their investment, which I understand is one of the Bill's purposes. For example, a survey commissioned by Newham council from Buchanans suggested that such a change would increase Eurostar's revenue by no less than 10 per cent. That is a big increase. There have been counter-suggestions that the figure could be as low as 2 per cent.; however, even 2 per cent. should not be sniffed at if one is trying to get better use of the network as a whole. That would be a matter of real interest to those involved in the restructuring of London and Continental Railways. In the context of the restructuring that the Minister described in his opening remarks, the potential travel and transit on the route is very important.

Charles Clarke: I strongly agree. I think that I am right in saying that Stratford is the sixth largest interchange station in London, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend suggests. I cited Canary Wharf, although I know that it is not in his constituency. Let us consider air travel, for example, the routes from London City airport to Brussels, Paris or elsewhere. The chances of getting people working in such places on business to go quickly by changing at Stratford are much better than hoping that they will go back to St. Pancras, drive to Ebbsfleet or use some other route to get on the train. I hope that they will be able to make such a journey in a much more effective way.
	The Bill is important because Government intervention is necessary to achieve these benefits. Reference has been made to the fact that in 2001 the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), set down clear conditions for a high quality interchange at Stratford, placing a planning obligation upon Union Railways, the company constructing the channel tunnel rail link. There is little doubt that Union Railways openly flouted the requirement, despite an explicit Government instruction. Union Railways claimed that it could not afford either the capital or the ongoing maintenance costs for this improvement, and eventually the Government's stipulation was, sadly, simply ignored. Representations were made by many people: those who were dealing with the London gateway; people from Newham council and a range of different other areas; and some rail companies who wanted the improvement to happen. I understand that when detailed legal advice was taken, those who supported carrying through the Government's commitment did not think that they would legally win the case to do that, so it got slid away.
	It is important that we use the power in section 6(1) of the Railways Act 2005, which, as I understand it, this Bill confirms will apply directly to this railway system, to require the investment that is needed. The attitude exhibited by Union Railways was unacceptable, which is why the Bill's requirements are necessary. The Secretary of State should use her powers in the ways that I have described.
	The power can, and should, also be used to encourage good connections to the Eurostar from throughout the country. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), makes a powerful case in resisting HS2, HS3, HS4, HS5 and so on simply because of the amount of money involved. That is a serious factor. However, would it not be possible and better to invest relatively much smaller sums to use connections such as Stratford in a way that genuinely creates an integrated system?
	The regulatory impact assessment explains that the Bill
	"sets out provisions which will facilitate the restructuring of LCR by clarifying the legislative and regulatory position of the HS1 railway, and goes on to say that without government intervention there is a risk of legal or regulatory uncertainty affecting the restructuring, which could jeopardise Government's ability to optimise value for the taxpayer."
	That is a serious warning in the RIA, when we consider the situation in the round, and that is why the Bill is necessary. However, that is also why I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the clarification includes the commitment to capital investment in a high quality interchange at Stratford station.
	The RIA makes it clear that the Government will receive capital receipts if assets are sold. I believe that a good use of such receipts would be to invest in the capital work at Stratford station that I have suggested. Such an investment would be worthwhile for the country, so I hope that Parliament will pass the Bill and that the Secretary of State will act on it.
	I would welcome the Minister's reflections on his response to an earlier intervention that the Bill would make no difference to Stratford station. I am aware that he was responding on the hoof, but I hope that he was wrong. I hope that the powers established by the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to encourage the development of a high quality interchange at Stratford, which would be important for my constituents and more widely, for the reasons that I have set out today.

Susan Kramer: This is a short, but highly technical Bill. I agree with the Conservative spokesman in appreciating the fact that we will get a briefing on the Bill next week, and I am also conscious that there will be work to be done in Committee. Although the Bill's clauses seem narrow, the consequences have significant monetary value, whether for the taxpayer or the fare payer ultimately using the range of services. Like others, I was caught up in the excitement of the completion of the channel tunnel rail link and the glittering opening of St. Pancras station. It was a glorious evening, and there was a certain satisfaction in seeing a project such as High Speed 1 come to a successful conclusion and feeling that we, too, had a high speed service, not just the continental Europeans.
	I shall not go into detail on the history, because others have, but it has some warnings embedded in it. It would be best to keep some of those warnings in mind as the Bill makes progress.
	I suggest to the Minister and the Conservative spokesman that it is wise to be cautious about using the phrase "on time and on budget". When the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), then Secretary of State for Transport, announced the award of the contract to London and Continental Railways in 1996, the total Government contribution was set at £1.7 billion—with no guarantees or loans—and the completion date was 2003. It was only with the rescue package—I commend the Government on their willingness to push that forward in 1998—that we actually got the project that people now describe as being on time and on budget. Most people agree that there may have been some flaws in the procurement that made it a much easier target to achieve.
	The Government now stand credit behind £3.7 billion in bonds issued by London and Continental Railways. There is still a potential for the Government to loan directly up to £400 million, and up-to-date figures on the likely figures would be welcome; although that seems to be a constant moving target. The Government, for their pains, have in effect obtained the equivalent of an equity stake of approximately 35 per cent. in the company and, in 2006, LCR was reclassified as a public sector company.
	The flaws in procurement raise several issues. It is clearly evident that the private sector managed to out-negotiate the Government into entering a contract in which the risks remained overwhelmingly with the public sector, with precious little remaining with the private sector. The Government—I suspect that the problem lies largely with the Treasury—were far too naive in their analysis of passenger numbers. The original forecast that Eurostar would have 21 million passengers by 2004 was ludicrous. Even the revised and re-revised downside cases of 8 million passengers by 2006 have been missed. Passenger numbers are starting to move up a bit now, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the greater risk profile for passenger numbers now that the base has been moved to St. Pancras.
	As many in the industry recognise, the business commuters based in south London are an important element of Eurostar's passenger numbers. They have taken advantage of the Heathrow, Gatwick and Waterloo triangle, but they will now be lost. I shall be interested to know the potential impact of that loss on the project, and to what extent the money that the Government have put in may be put at risk.

Susan Kramer: I very much agree. There is huge demand for continental freight transport and I am concerned about the quantities of freight that are likely to arrive in the UK—the industry suggests another 2 million trucks-worth within 10 years. The only way it can be moved successfully through the country is to have more freight capacity on our rail lines overall. I am a fan of dedicated freight lines, which are not a subject of the Bill, but the idea feeds into its general structure, as the framework could be affected by the terms of the Bill.
	The quality of procurement for the project is relevant, because the Bill would shape the sale of the underlying asset—possibly the next step. As the Minister is aware, in 2005 the National Audit Office took the view that the taxpayer was still likely to be called on to fund a shortfall in LCR's cash flow, and that the economic justification for the links remained marginal. Those issues will have to be addressed in the next step.
	In 2006, the Public Accounts Committee came to similar conclusions and recommended that the Department for Transport should actively manage the size and timing of LCR's call on the access charge loan, to give LCR and Eurostar an incentive maximise revenues.
	It would be interesting to understand how the Bill, and the sale that will follow on, will impact on those issues.
	The Minister has confirmed that, in effect, the Bill is a preparation for sale. Rob Holden, the chief executive officer of LCR, said:
	"After November 14, the restructuring"—
	I think we can safely read the word "sale"—
	"will be our No 1 priority."
	I fully support what was said in the Treasury minutes, in 2006, in response to the National Audit Office. It was noted that
	"the best way of protecting the taxpayer's interests would be for there to be an open, competitive and transparent process before the sale of LCR".
	The Minister has been kind enough to let us know that the likely structure will involve a division between track and train operations, and property. He has confirmed that it will be possible for Network Rail to be one of the bidders. I wonder whether he is able to go into some of the ways in which the Bill could help to make sure that the project remains an integrated part of our overall network—rather than standing alone—given that the rest of the track in the country is owned directly by Network Rail. There is also the issue that I raised before: ensuring that we do not, through the creation of complicated consortiums that own different pieces, find ourselves once again facing an anti-competitive conflict of interest—which seems to have expressed itself in resistance to allowing other freight operators to use the tunnel.
	I am rather unclear about the impact of the sale. Will the Government receive an equity return that involves getting their 35 per cent. stake back? What will happen to the debt? Will that be repaid through the financing? Given that the construction risk was one of the primary arguments for the Government agreeing to stand behind £3.7 billion of debt, and that construction risk is now over, will we have some assurance that guarantees on that figure will be removed?
	Can the Government try to give us some confidence that the public will genuinely get value for their support for, and investment in, this project? I just give some warning in relation to the recent example of Northern Rock. That reminds us that the private sector tends to think that it can play fairly fast and loose with public money and with the Government in these kinds of circumstances. The Minister will be conscious of the pain and anguish that has followed the collapse of Metronet's public-private partnership. That demonstrated that such negotiations will be exceedingly complex, if they are to be successful.
	I want to ask the Minister about the use of the proceeds from the sale that the Bill structures. Others, including the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, have mentioned that the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee reminded the Government in 1999 that, when the Channel Tunnel Act first got parliamentary approval in 1987, the regions were promised a benefit. It was to be for them as much as for the people in London. The ETRA Committee report that looked at the final project said:
	"The regions have been cheated".
	The Government could begin to fulfil that promise to the regions by directing all or part of the proceeds from the sale into expanding the high-speed rail network. That would not pay for the network from beginning to end, but it could begin to provide part of the Government proportion and begin to pay for the planning and feasibility studies. We could begin to look at the kind of structures that have been used for the Crossrail project, for example—the kind of structures that could bring development and business money in, to enable a high-speed network to be developed. My party is going to look at a lot of that over the next year.
	I join with others in saying that high-speed rail has huge potential in this country. The Government are being short-sighted in putting off even looking at high speed 2 until 2012. Although they may argue that with three or four hours to spare a person can make a rail journey between significant parts of the UK, the benefits that come from high-speed rail—we shall see them in Kent—are jobs and regeneration. Given the intense population pressures in the south-east, the use of a rail network that combined high-speed rail with dedicated freight lines, to take business, jobs and opportunities across the country, rather than keeping them essentially south-east and London-centric, would be of benefit to absolutely everybody. We have a pot of money—not the largest in the world, but a significant one—that the Government must, to some extent, regard as a windfall; it could be put towards trying to make that happen. That would live up to the early promise associated with the channel tunnel and the beginning of the idea of an exciting, new and different future for rail in this country.

Susan Kramer: I thank the hon. Gentleman but I think that there is huge opportunity with high speed, and that ignoring it may be to our detriment. A point that he missed is that when a new line is created and opens up genuine opportunity—Crossrail is an example—there is an ability to capture the development money. He will be aware of the Jubilee line figures: there was a cost of £3.2 billion, even with overruns, but an estimated benefit to developers of £13 billion. The money to get the line built, and the profits, were only just captured. In recent years, we in this country have taken a rather poor approach to the way in which money can be pooled together, because of the benefits, to create infrastructure. A change in the thinking is required. I hope that the Government will use the significant amount of money that will hopefully come from the line to open up that world of possibilities.
	The Minister must have expected me to mention my next subject, and the Conservative spokesman gave me a wonderful prompt. I believe that there are obligations to those who lost out with the new link. My constituents in south-west London, who valued the Eurostar at Waterloo, are obviously in that group. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and I have been assured by the Minister in previous exchanges that two of the Eurostar platforms at Waterloo will be transferred to South West Trains in 2008 to improve our commuter services, and that in the 2009 to 2014 cycle, the remaining Eurostar platforms will be converted to domestic use to allow 10-car trains on all lines into Waterloo. I raise the issue because recent press reports questioned that timetable and that plan. This is an opportunity for the Minister to give us reassurance on that point.
	Like the Conservative spokesman, we fully support the Bill and the intentions behind it. We shall be interested to follow the details in Committee; that is for the benefit of all, because as we know, a small, technical drafting error in such a Bill can have significant financial consequences. We are delighted to support the Bill today.

Eric Martlew: I am sorry. Railtrack caused us nightmares. Network Rail needed to be created and we now have a system that is working well. The Minister pleased me when he said that it would be allowed to bid. I shall be interested in the financial arrangements that will allow it to do so. That is good news.
	Now that we have High Speed 1, we must develop high speed 2—somebody mentioned high speed 3, but we do not yet have high speed 2—and bring the line from St. Pancras to the north. One or two hon. Members have mentioned that there is some resentment in the rest of the country about the amount of money that has been spent on infrastructure in the London area. The public transport system in London is very good. In my constituency the only alternative to a bus is to walk. I chaired a meeting yesterday on Thameslink, which seems a good idea that will bring benefits not just to London but to the south-east, and Crossrail is to go ahead as well.
	There is a feeling that the north is being left out. I can become obsessive, as I did in about 1992 about the upgrading of the west coast main line. I am still obsessive, as the Minister will know from our meeting last week. Through the work of colleagues, many others and myself, we now have a railway line on the west coast that we can be proud of. The Government provided £89 billion to upgrade it to my constituency and to yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we still need a link from St. Pancras up to the north that will take my constituents and others to the continent, or perhaps to Heathrow. One of the proposals, from Greengauge 21, sets that out.
	Some comment has been made about the Eddington report. I was part of the Select Committee that questioned Sir Rod Eddington and I pressed him on the need for a high-speed link. Despite the reports in the press that the idea had been discarded, he said that there was a role for a high-speed link and that the planning for it should start now.
	High Speed 1 is tremendous. The Government and the country can be proud of it. The improvement in St. Pancras is welcome, but we must go beyond that and take those advantages to the north.
	I shall comment briefly on Stratford. I went there to see the opening of the station. It is a totally different sort of station—it is modern, and it is a credit to those who designed it and to the Government, who funded it. However, as we know from the Olympics plans, it is only seven minutes from St. Pancras, and Eurostar will not want to stop at Stratford. It might make one stop as it comes into Kent and continue to St. Pancras. I am not sure whether the Bill can do anything about that. Will the Minister clarify that? It is a technical Bill and needs to be examined carefully, as the financial implications of getting it wrong could be costly.
	I return to where I started—the Bill is before us as a result of a successful project which is a credit to the country. I am sure the technical aspects of the Bill will be sorted out and the maximum benefit given back to the taxpayer who, through the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, had to bear the risk at the early stage. I welcome the Bill and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has been listening to the calls from all parts of the House for the high-speed link to continue to the north.

Damian Green: As the Minister acutely predicted, I shall make some remarks about the intermediate stations in Kent, but before I do so, I shall pick up two points. The first was made by the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and shared by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). The right hon. Member for Norwich, South was worried that the guarantees given to Stratford might not be watertight. From my experience in Ashford, I can say that if those guarantees are not nailed down, he is right to be sceptical about what might happen in the future. I share those worries.
	Secondly, I am fascinated to hear from all parts of the House the unalloyed enthusiasm for new high-speed tracks. I share that enthusiasm for the vision of a high-speed railway running up the spine of the country, no doubt eventually as far as the Minister's constituency in Glasgow, but as the only Member present who has had a high-speed line built through his constituency, I warn hon. Members that it is not an unalloyed joy. I apologise—we are joined by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who also has a high-speed line through his constituency.
	I make two points. First, if Members want their constituents to welcome a high-speed line with open arms, they must make sure that their constituents get some direct benefit from it, or they will only see the downside. If we build lines from London to Birmingham and then to Manchester, most of the places in the intermediate areas will not benefit very much. People should recognise that. It may well be worth doing as a national project, but we should not kid ourselves that many people will benefit directly.
	The second point is the lesson learned from Ashford: people will want to consult. What happened there was that four different lines were drawn on maps and lay there, as it were, for years—thus blighting many properties, completely unnecessarily, for years. That planning blight caused more angst and difficulty than the actual construction. Although the period of construction was, of course, difficult, people at least recognised that something was happening. When we come, as I hope we will, to build high speeds 2, 3, 4—there have been bids as high as high speed 15, as far as Norwich—please can whoever is in charge of the rail network learn the lessons from the building of the relatively short stretch of high-speed line across Kent?
	I want to raise a few points about the Bill that particularly affect the intermediate stations in Kent, particularly Ashford station in my constituency. The bulk of the Bill confirms that the Secretary of State will continue to be empowered to fund the CTRL—or High Speed 1, as we now call it. I wish to explore the Secretary of State's role as part of my initial point. The Minister will be well aware of the background. Amid all the celebrations, in which I shared, about St. Pancras and the new services, this week also saw the end—temporary, I hope—of the Brussels services from Ashford. For my constituents and many others around Kent and Sussex, that is a blot on what should be an unalloyed celebration of the expansion of the rail network. The lesson that I draw is that we need better and more positive ministerial involvement to preserve the wider public benefits of high-speed rail. The need for that involvement is shown by a letter that I received in August this year from Guillaume Pepy, the chairman of Eurostar. He said, quite bluntly:
	"Whilst Eurostar acknowledges the growth plans for both Ashford and Ebbsfleet, the Board is equally clear that the business has a purely commercial remit to maximise its passenger revenues for its French, British and Belgian shareholders, and to help pay for the construction of High Speed 1, and is not accountable for regeneration."
	That is honest and direct; the company is in it just for the money—fair enough. The letter makes it clear that the wider responsibilities for regeneration, always regarded as a hugely important part of the High Speed 1 project, lie with Ministers. The problem has been that Ministers have now declined that responsibility. Another letter, written in July by Judith Shepherd of rail customer and stakeholder relations at the Department for Transport, to Edith Robson, a constituent of mine, says:
	"It is important to state that the Government has no formal powers over Eurostar's operating decisions and that Eurostar, whilst under an obligation to operate a sound commercial business, is at liberty to set its own timetables."
	That is a classic black hole, between the responsibilities of the public and private sectors. Eurostar says that it does not care about regeneration and the Government say that they have nothing to do with Eurostar's timetable. Even though tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on regeneration efforts, based on the international train services and the timetable, no one, apparently, is responsible for making sure that the rail services contribute to the regeneration effort. The buck stops nowhere.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is trying to have it both ways. He wants to praise his Government for mounting the rescue, but when things happen that he and I disagree with, he says that the Government have nothing to do with them. He cannot have it both ways. I hope that the Bill will make it more difficult to walk away from these responsibilities in future and that the House can receive some reassurance about that in the winding-up speeches.
	Looking ahead, as the Minister explained, the purpose of the Bill is to prepare LCR for break-up and subsequent sale, so that Eurostar will then become a purely stand-alone operation. It is reasonably likely that one of the bidders, possibly the successful one, will be SNCF. The chances of SNCF caring very much about Ashford, Ebbsfleet or Stratford are remote unless some safeguards are written into the sale to try to recapture the full regeneration benefits that Members on both sides of the House want and that should come from a project that has absorbed billions of pounds of taxpayers' money. I hope that the Minister can reassure me about that at the end of the debate and at subsequent stages.
	I want finally to deal with the change in the role of the Office of the Rail Regulator to allow it to charge fees on the line. Will the Minister clarify whether that new charging regime is designed to allow, or even to promote, competition on using the line? He will be aware, as will others, that there have been reports of new operators who wish to run trains through the tunnel on High Speed 1, and many of us think that such competition, if technically feasible, would be welcome.
	As we have heard during the course of the debate, the issues surrounding the high-speed line are rather less smooth than the ride that we will all enjoy on it. It may yet prove in the long term to be a successful "grand projet" of the type that this country is traditionally not very good at. I hope so. To be fully successful, however, it needs to provide the benefits originally promised to Ashford and other parts of Kent. I hope that the Minister can reassure all hon. Members that those benefits will materialise in future.

Adam Holloway: First, I would like to say how delighted I and many of my constituents are about the high-speed domestic service. I suppose for that I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).
	I would like to speak primarily about constituency matters. Although the project's financing has been thoroughly discussed, local passenger numbers are vital within this complex financial package. I would like to make some comments on that, and about the commuters who use the service and who will be affected. I would also like to touch on the integration of the rail link to the ongoing construction work. The infrastructure and regeneration efforts in general have been used as an argument for continued public funding and the backing of the link.
	I recently travelled by Eurostar on the amazing, brilliant, new, fast service. International train services began running from Ebbsfleet railway station yesterday, on time, and I and my friend, the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), were delighted about that. Moreover, we no longer have to listen to a French conductor, triumphant to the point of smugness, announcing that at last the train is able to achieve maximum speed every time we emerge from the tunnel on the French side. That is a relief in itself.
	The train services may now be operating, but the construction of the associated infrastructure is still ongoing. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 incorporated the widening and realignment of the A2 trunk road dual carriageway, which runs past Ebbsfleet International, and through my constituency on the old Watling street from London to the coast. The integration of the rail and road infrastructure was good news, but the actual construction has not been as well integrated as it might have been. People in Gravesham have endured traffic gridlock from the widening of the A2, and residents of local villages have at times been literally unable to leave their driveways because of gridlock on the rat runs used to avoid delays. The realignment of the A2 continues, with regular traffic jams stretching into Gravesend and just as far to the south on the other side of the A2. I hope continued construction of local infrastructure and future maintenance will continue; it will no doubt be required because the process will have a great impact on local people.
	I have probably dwelt a bit too much on construction, and I would like to focus on the regeneration of the local area, which was one of the arguments initially used for continuing to finance the tunnel rail link. Since then, of course, the Olympics have been sited in east London, where the other new international railway station is. I am concerned that financial commitments to support local regeneration may be channelled towards the Olympic site and away from Gravesham and north Kent. Although Ebbsfleet is situated in the Dartford constituency, it is right on the edge of the two main towns in my constituency: Gravesend and Northfleet. Most of the car parks are in my constituency, I am happy to say. The people of Gravesham have faced disruption caused by the construction, owing to the increased traffic flows needed to ensure high passenger numbers, and it is vital that they get some of the benefit from the regeneration. I hope that we can reaffirm the importance of regeneration in the area, particularly in north Kent, and that we do not simply see the process as another way of funding the Olympics.
	A new development of residential and commercial properties is planned surrounding the station, which in itself does not count towards the regeneration of the existing parts of Gravesham. In order to encourage inward investment for cultural outlets, about £2 million has been raised for a landmark sculpture—an "Angel of the South", if you like—that will be visible to passing motorists on the A2, but also to people on the trains. As residents in my constituency and that of my neighbours will have to look at such an iconic sculpture every day, it is most important that anything commissioned should get final approval by local people and elected officials on Gravesham borough council.
	The Office of Rail Regulation is currently able to provide very useful information about the use of Gravesend railway station. To the nearest thousand, it is calculated that just over 1 million people entered the station in 2004-05, about 1.3 million left it, and 9,000 people changed trains there. Last year those figures increased. Although those numbers may be interesting to trainspotters, they also show the increased use of Gravesend station, which should increase considerably when commuter services start using the link. They also show an average of about 10,000 more people coming to Gravesham than leaving it by train, and that migration can only increase when the morning commuting time from London Charing Cross to Gravesend falls to about 20 minutes.
	There appear to be plans for two trains an hour to call at Gravesend on their way to St. Pancras. However, those will start in Medway and other services will originate in other parts of Kent. It is not clear how many seats—or, more likely, standing places—will be available for people from Gravesend. There is also the issue of the affordability of services from Gravesend to St. Pancras for local people. I hope that it will be made clear how many commuting places will be made available to passengers travelling from Gravesend and Higham to St. Pancras in order to offer protection for existing commuters so that they do not face an even longer commute from Gravesend.
	Finally, the Border and Immigration Agency has informed me that there are no plans to have a permanently manned immigration control at Ebbsfleet International railway station. I am concerned, therefore, that immigration officers will not be monitoring departures from Ebbsfleet International. I am also concerned that no one will be on hand to check arrivals should immigration checks not be satisfactorily completed on board the train or on the continent.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak about the Bill, and particularly to support the furthering of the Secretary of State's powers to fund the channel tunnel rail link and the trains that will run on it, post-construction.
	I must apologise, however, for not being able to be here at the beginning of the debate and for not having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, or that of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I was, however, pleased to be here when the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) made her speech. I found it very interesting and I agreed with much of it. As I said in an intervention, if there is to be heavy subsidy, direct or indirect, for CTRL and the whole system, including the channel tunnel itself, there must be more Government involvement. It cannot simply be left in private hands, and in the longer run we might see the whole system integrated into a publicly owned railway system, but that is an argument for another day.
	I have taken a long-term interest in railways, and I am particularly pleased about the St. Pancras development for personal reasons because I have travelled on Thameslink from my Luton constituency for 37 years—not to this House for the whole time, of course—and it has been quite wonderful to see the regeneration of St. Pancras station. The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that she thought the case for the St. Pancras development had not been made. If the debate had taken place 15 years ago, there might have been an argument for developing a high-speed line from Waterloo rather than St. Pancras, but it has happened this way and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chair of the Transport Committee, has pointed out that many more people live on the north side than on the south side. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do everything he can to bring forward the development of Thameslink so that all those in the south of London can travel to the magnificent new station about to be opened at St. Pancras International. I travel through that station every day and it is really exciting to see it developing. It will open within days, and the process has been very encouraging.
	I like to think that I played some role in that process myself, because of the concrete box built underneath St. Pancras. It was always going to be there; it had to be built in order that the station could be developed at some future date. However, many of us—I was one of those who lobbied most hard on this point—thought that it had to be developed and built at the same time as the opening of Eurostar services from St. Pancras. Otherwise, people would have had to walk from the appalling King's Cross Thameslink station, which was always temporary, at night, across one of the most depressing parts of London. I worked in the area for a long time, and we know that there is a degree of drug addiction and prostitution in that area that is very depressing.
	It was too much to expect travellers to go from King's Cross Thameslink to the Eurostar trains without new provision. The station had to be built to ensure that passengers had proper, decent access to St. Pancras station. I argued that passenger traffic on Eurostar from St. Pancras could have been seriously damaged if the new station had not been built underneath St. Pancras with access via travelators, escalators and so on. I am therefore pleased that the station was built.
	The hon. Member for Richmond Park mentioned freight. Hon. Members may recall that I proposed in an Adjournment debate in January the development of the EuroRail Freight Route, which would put an enormous amount of freight that now goes by road on to the railways, and use the channel tunnel. We have made a submission, which is currently under investigation, to the Select Committee. I shall not go into more detail, but I believe that pushing vast amounts of freight through the channel tunnel would transform its economics, which would improve those of CTRL and of Eurostar services.
	There will never be enough passengers to justify the channel tunnel or the CTRL link, so better use must be made of the tunnel for freight. All the forecasts at the beginning of the channel tunnel project were overblown: people argued that everyone would travel by train rather than plane in future. That was unrealistic. Many will travel by train—I shall use Eurostar as often as I can—but others will use aircraft and possibly still go by sea. However, there were never going to be enough passengers to justify building either the tunnel or CTRL. Freight had to be considered as a longer-term possibility. To realise the transportation of the sort of volume of freight that we are discussing, we must develop a delivery system on this side that is capable of taking full-sized containers and trailers on trains, and match the freight services and lines that have been developed on the continent. That is the future. I shall continue to pursue that and to support railway developments in general.
	I greatly look forward to travelling from my constituency in Luton to St. Pancras and then to Paris, Brussels and elsewhere. We are discussing a wonderful development, which has given a genuine boost to the idea of modern railway development. Not so long ago, the Department for Transport seriously talked about railways as the mode of transport of the past. I exempt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), from that charge. However, many civil servants were cited as saying that they were managing the decline of the railway system. That is not happening now. We know that rail is the transport mode of the future, not the past. Instead of the Department alone being enthusiastic, passengers have decided to use railways, and the demand is so great that the Government and the rail industry have to consider extra capacity. That is a wonderful development, which is good not only environmentally but socially and in every possible way. I look forward to further railway developments along those lines, especially that of a dedicated rail freight network linked to the channel tunnel and the continent of Europe.

Howard Stoate: I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate, but I was serving on a Statutory Instrument Committee. I am especially pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, as many hon. Members know, HS1 runs through the middle of my constituency, and Ebbsfleet International station is situated there. I therefore have several observations to make about a once-in-a-lifetime project, which can transform the lives of people not only in Kent but throughout the UK, provided that it is successful.
	The debate is about a Bill that will pave the way for the sale of the project. Its saleability will depend on its success, which is what I want to consider this evening. There are three key components to the project's success. The first is the extent to which it can bring new jobs, skills and regeneration, especially to Kent, which desperately needs regeneration and has a significant skills shortage. To what extent can the high- speed rail line achieve that? I believe that, if we get it right, we can create a blueprint for many projects that will benefit the country.
	The second major component is modal shift. It is a jargon term, which effectively means the extent of the project's success in changing people's travelling habits, away from aeroplanes or private cars to high-speed rail links in particular. That is crucial and much more work needs to be done to ensure that modal shift occurs. Another project in my constituency is the fast-track bus route—a rapid, dedicated bus service between the constituency of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Holloway) and mine. It has been fantastically successful—passenger numbers are 50 per cent. above those predicted. However, it is more interesting to note that there has been at least a 10 per cent. modal shift. In other words, 10 per cent. of current journeys on the fast-track bus system are made by people who would previously have used their car. A significant shift in travelling patterns away from private car usage to rapid, clean, efficient public transport is already occurring. I believe that HS1 can also offer such an opportunity. In two years, when the 17-minute commuter service from Ebbsfleet to St. Pancras operates, it will offer a further opportunity to get away from the overcrowded, rather dingy trains on the North Kent line and reach the centre of London much more quickly, in more comfort and in a way that is a model for others.
	The third and perhaps most important major component is the extent to which inward investment in projects such as HS1 benefit existing communities as much as new ones. In my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Gravesham, there is huge inward investment, and plans to build up to 30,000 new homes and provide up to 20,000 or 30,000 new jobs, as well as massive improvement of derelict infrastructure, which sorely needs regeneration. However, can we benefit existing communities to the same extent as we benefit new communities? The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) made the important point that, in many instances, people who live along the route of new lines do not benefit at all. They take the mess, noise, inconvenience and disruption to their lives and get little in return. It is vital to avoid that when we build such new projects. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we had five, six or seven years of uncertainty about the route—whether it would be A, B, C or D, which homes would be blighted, bought or knocked down and which people would be moved. It was a nightmare for many years until the route was fixed. We must find a better way to tackle those planning issues to ensure that, once such a project is agreed, the minimum disruption is caused for the minimum time and affects as few people as possible.
	The problem with many projects is that those who face the most disruption experience the least benefit. Unfortunately, that is largely true in my constituency. Despite the enormous investment, improvements and opportunities for people, many of the existing, settled communities do not feel the benefit of the regeneration projects. They still live in overcrowded areas, face the extra noise, traffic and pollution that the new projects generate and do not yet experience the good. If we are to produce more new projects in future, it is essential that existing communities in the areas that we regenerate perceive from day one what is in it for them. What new jobs will they get? What improvements will be made to their housing infrastructure? How will their schools and hospitals be rebuilt and regenerated? How will their shopping centres be upgraded? That must be clear from the beginning.
	The rail link is a major part of the Thames Gateway project, which has had a mixed press over the years. Indeed, recent reports have stated that perhaps we have not maximised the benefit or achieved the genuine vision that we should have realised. If we are to get people on side and to understand exactly what can be achieved, we must ensure that they benefit before rather than after the new communities.
	The way to do that is, first, to iron out some of the planning issues, to ensure that regeneration projects are swift and effective, that local people are involved in planning and that there is the minimum disruption for the minimum time. However, we also have to ensure some early wins, so that people already living in the communities affected get some quick benefits, before we start to introduce the big changes. Obvious examples of that include the fast-track bus system, whereby communities are linked to town centres and new developments. We must ensure that investment in our town centres is made before the extra building and development, so that people can see improvements in their towns first. It is a question of direction of travel and of ensuring that we build the infrastructure that benefits people's lives before we build the other parts. If we can get those things right and in the right order—Ebbsfleet and north Kent are good examples of where we can do just that—and thereby ensure that local people benefit from new investment from the off, we will bring huge benefits to the country.
	I finish by paying tribute to the work that the Government have done to ensure the delivery of the project. It has worked, and there is a fantastic future for High Speed 1. I think that there will be high speeds 2, 3, 4, 5 and who knows how many more. Local communities can be shown how they can benefit, but we must ensure that we get those important issues right before we, to make a pun, railroad ahead with future expansion.

Julian Brazier: As we complete this debate some three hours early, it is worth reflecting on how transport business is again finishing early, with the Government still telling us that they have not found the time anywhere to fit in the harbours Bill, which they allegedly support. Should the harbour revision orders, on which we are supporting the Government, run into trouble, they will have themselves to blame for not introducing that necessary modernisation.
	I am aware of a certain sense of irony today. One of the most vivid experiences of my parliamentary career was leading a little gang of just 16 MPs with my colleague David Shaw, the then Member for Dover, in a rebellion against the final stages of the then Channel Tunnel Bill. As the right hon. Lady was then the leader of the Conservative party, it was quite an experience. Nevertheless, Eurotunnel was big enough to invite me to the opening. It would be impossible not to be impressed by the sheer scale of the engineering, even if the delays and cost overruns were well in excess of what David Shaw and I predicted in our letter to the  Financial Times, which caused a certain flutter and started the argument.
	Unlike then, today I join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) in congratulating the LCR on getting the high-speed link in on time and pretty much to budget, which is a remarkable achievement. The link will provide a faster service to the continent and for those who have taken part in this debate who want the railways to prosper—that is, everyone who has taken part—it is a heartening sight. I also welcome the opportunities for my county, and the prospect of trains taking one hour from Canterbury West is extremely attractive. However, I shall return to the concerns that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) about the situation there.
	My concern 20 years ago was that the channel tunnel would not prove to be commercially viable and would have to rely on a large amount of public subsidy. Ironically, that point is borne out by clause 1, which confirms the Secretary of State's right to fund the channel tunnel rail link and its trains, which is something against which we are not arguing against now. The aim of clause 1, as the Minister made clear, is to maximise the value of the asset. In that respect it is a sensible tidying-up measure.
	The fact that the port of Dover has, against a number of predictions made at the time, done so well and continues to prosper is a tribute to the management there. The fact that we still have a successful Dover and many low-cost airlines has put the rail link to France and Belgium under pressure. Although numbers have recovered from the low point of just over 6 million to a little under 8 million last year, it should be remembered that the Government's 1998 projections were for 9 million passengers under the downside case and for 8 million under the low case, just above the current level.
	That said, when Richard Brown took the trouble to come and put the case for Eurotunnel in my constituency it was rather sad that, in giving the rather gloomy tale that forms the background to my hon. Friend's concerns, he emphasised the poor passenger numbers as a reason why—surprise, surprise, now that Ebbsfleet had been built—services from Ashford to Brussels had been entirely wound up and redirected to Paris. That was especially sad, because other parts of the industry sufficiently affected by low-cost airlines—the premium airlines, for instance—are reputedly looking into rail. Guillame Pépy, the head of France's SNCF has hinted that Air France is considering launching arrivals through the channel tunnel once Eurostar is opened up to competition in 2010. Indeed, Air France has already started a parallel process, with a shift from air to rail in its link from Paris to Brussels. My hon. Friend made the point strongly that his constituents and mine, as well as people throughout east Kent, are deeply concerned about the loss of services from Ashford. I have considerable sympathy for the points that he made. However, Eurostar must ask itself how others, including airlines, are seeing a commercial opportunity there while it is cutting back.
	The Secretary of State's power to grant subsidies is significantly reinforced by clause 1. With all the tales of woe that we have heard, I should like to echo the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon put about whether train operating companies are included in the measure and whether the Minister envisages it involving any extra public funding. I ask that because—I see that the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) has just resumed his place—no money resolution has been tabled with the Bill and a number of the items raised in the debate, if not the contents of the Bill themselves, involve spending extra money.
	Issues surrounding the interchange at Stratford closely parallel those around the use of Ebbsfleet and, more particularly, Ashford. A powerful case has been made to say that if we are to see the regenerative benefits, one way or another, those issues need settling, but I see no reason why that should mean public money.
	Another matter to consider is how things will develop in respect of subsequent high-speed links. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon announced our clear commitment to a feasibility study, which means exactly what it says—that we will look into it, but that we are not committing ourselves beyond that. I remind one or two of the more enthusiastic speakers of the wise warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford: if there is one thing to avoid next time, it is putting lots of alternative routes on a map and then spending years discussing them. Even in my end of Kent, we felt the backwash of the sheer fury generated in west Kent.
	A smaller matter that needs clarifying is the exact relationship between the channel tunnel rail link and the Office of Rail Regulation. On the one hand, clauses 2 and 3 seem to entrench the channel tunnel outside the remit of the ORR, but on the other, clause 4 provides for the regulator to levy charges on the channel tunnel. I would be grateful if the Minister would pick that point up in his concluding speech.
	The issue of freight came up about five times in our debate, but the Minister hardly touched on it at all in his opening speech. You would rightly restrain me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were to broaden my speech too much into a wider discussion of the issues surrounding freight, but I saw parallels between the remarks of several Members on this measure and the position of our ports. The complaint is, frankly, that no legal framework is in place to allow port operators—even those forced to spend large sums on infrastructure—to negotiate long-term rail paths. I am aware of a discussion document that deals with the issue, but it offers a short-term and very complicated solution. I believe that there is a parallel, so I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether the Bill helps in any way to deal with the problem of encouraging more rail freight.
	This is a short and uncontroversial Bill, so the Opposition are happy to support it.

Tom Harris: If my right hon. Friend will forgive, I would like to make some progress and I was generous in giving way during my opening remarks.
	Let me clarify the role of the Office of Rail Regulation, about which several hon. Members have asked. As the hon. Member for Canterbury rightly says, clause 2 entrenches the existing position that CTRL or HS1 will not be regulated by the Office of Rail Regulation. It will, however, continue to be the safety regulator and the appeal body for any train operating companies—whether it be Eurostar or any other—that feel that the charging regime is unfair. Clause 3 will allow the ORR to make charges specifically for its own services and not for track access charges.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South, who made an excellent contribution, obviously feels very strongly about Stratford International. This may not be news to anyone in the House, but I am not aware of any plans by Eurostar to provide any international services from Stratford International. I understand that Eurostar has committed to looking again into whether there is a demand for such services from that station. In that respect, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a correlation, as the hon. Member for Ashford has already said, between that and the position in Ashford. I come back to my earlier comments. Clause 1 clarifies the Secretary of State's role and responsibility for funding services on CTRL, but it does not in any way oblige that person to fund capital improvements—in Stratford International or anywhere else.

David Hanson: I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for raising the case of Michael Shields today. Self-evidently, she feels passionately about Michael's case following his conviction in Bulgaria in 2005, and she has raised his case with me previously in private discussions, and with other Ministers and ministerial delegations. She is indeed working tirelessly on behalf of Michael and his family. She has also raised concerns on behalf of Councillor Joe Anderson and Arlene McCarthy MEP, who have been particularly supportive of Michael's case and have raised these issues with the Government; whatever I say this evening, they will undoubtedly continue to do so. My hon. Friend also mentioned the noble Bishop of Liverpool, who sits in another place, where he too has raised this matter. Again, I know that he is committed to raising Michael's case at every opportunity.
	As my hon. Friend said, Michael Shields was convicted of the attempted murder of a Bulgarian national. Mr. Shields was returning from a football match in Turkey when he became involved in a stone-throwing incident that resulted in the serious injury of Martin Georgiev. Mr. Shields maintains his innocence, and his family and other supporters have mounted a strong and effective campaign to prove his innocence. As my hon. Friend said, a fellow Liverpool fan, Graham Sankey, who was arrested with Mr. Shields but released without charge, subsequently issued a statement indicating that he may have been involved in an incident that resulted in the injury to Mr. Georgiev. However, he has refused to give a witness statement and subsequently withdrew his earlier statement.
	Let me say right away that I am well aware of the strength of feeling that Michael's case arouses in Liverpool. My constituency is very close to Liverpool, which is the city of my birth, and I understand well the feelings that have been expressed. My hon. Friend and others have put forward the view that Michael is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. That strength of opinion is amply demonstrated by the petition on the Downing street website, which as of today has more than 16,000 names appended to it.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have tried wherever possible to ensure that Michael has received appropriate help and support. I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging in her speech the assistance provided not just by my Department—the Ministry of Justice—but by the Foreign Office and the Home Office. She will be aware that once the Bulgarian authorities consented to transfer Michael back to the UK, we attempted to do that quickly and without unnecessary delay on our part. Arrangements were indeed put in place to transfer him to a prison in the north-west of England—in his home region—within 24 hours of his arrival in the UK, so that he could, quite properly, receive visits from his family and friends at a convenient time. Michael continues to serve his sentence in a prison close to his home.
	As my hon. Friend said, now that Michael has turned 21 he has been transferred to an adult prison where I understand that he is taking advantage of the educational and training facilities available to him, while working towards the possibility of one day transferring to an open prison. When my hon. Friend and I discussed that possibility, I explained to her how it could occur in the near future.
	My hon. Friend also raised the issue of Michael's undergoing a polygraph test, which we have been pleased to grant. The governor of Garth prison has indicated that she is in principle content for the test to go ahead, provided that the chosen polygraph expert and any individual accompanying them are security-cleared. That will undoubtedly be acceptable to my hon. Friend and to Michael. I believe that there has been a request for that test to be filmed, but there is no question of that happening. However, I hope that the test itself will prove of value and that it can be undertaken speedily.
	It is clear from my hon. Friend's speech tonight, however, that Michael's supporters—his family and many people in the city of Liverpool—feel that further action should be taken to remedy what they believe to be a serious miscarriage of justice. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the new evidence that has recently come to light. I know that she knows this, but I have to say to her that the proper place for that evidence to be considered and tested is in Bulgaria, either by a Bulgarian court or, if that is not possible, by the Bulgarian President, who has the power to grant clemency.
	One of the central principles of the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, under which Michael was transferred to a prison in the United Kingdom, is that the receiving state must respect the findings of the sentencing state. Indeed, article 13 of the convention makes it clear that the sentencing state alone retains the right to review the judgment of its court. Under the terms of that convention there is limited scope for the receiving state, which in this case is the United Kingdom, to change the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. A sentence can be adapted where the sentence imposed exceeds the sentence available to courts in the receiving state for the same offence. My hon. Friend will know that Michael is serving a sentence of 10 years for attempted murder. As the maximum sentence available to British courts for attempted murder is life imprisonment, we have no power to reduce Michael's sentence on those grounds.
	My hon. Friend mentioned that following Michael's return to the UK, his sentence is administered in accordance with British release arrangements. She is aware that following strong representations from her and others, some of whom I mentioned, the Government were able to amend Michael's release dates to ensure that he serves no longer in custody here than would have been the case had he remained in Bulgaria. That decision has shortened Michael's sentence, and I know that my hon. Friend has welcomed it.
	The central point that my hon. Friend made concerned the potential for a royal prerogative of mercy. She has asked for clarification on whether the Justice Secretary could grant a pardon to Michael under a royal prerogative of mercy. As hon. Members will know, there are different types of pardon, but I assume that my hon. Friend would be seeking what is known as a free pardon, which would remove, as far as possible, all penalties and other consequences of the conviction. I hope that it is helpful my saying that a request to grant a free pardon to a repatriated prisoner is highly unusual, and that such a request has never been granted. My hon. Friend mentioned that I gave her my answer to a parliamentary question today, and in it I re-emphasised the situation to her.
	Although the Bulgarian Government have quoted article 12 of the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, that does not address the question whether the grant of a pardon to a repatriated prisoner is possible or appropriate under UK law. I do not wish to give Michael false hope. I know that this will be difficult for my hon. Friend and her constituent to hear, but I have to say honestly to them that it appears very doubtful whether the power to grant a free pardon extends to people convicted overseas and serving their sentence in the UK, as Michael is now doing following his conviction in Bulgaria and his imprisonment in the north-west.
	Furthermore, free pardons are granted only in very restricted circumstances, and without prejudging Michael's circumstances, they may well not yet meet them. As ever, I want to help my hon. Friend, because of both her passion and commitment to Michael's case, and the strength of feeling of her constituents, which she represents to this House. If she wishes, I can write to her with clarification of how the royal prerogative of mercy is applied, so that Michael can consider whether he wishes to exercise that potential option.
	My hon. Friend also asked whether the Government would consider supporting Michael's application to the Bulgarian authorities for a pardon. As she has mentioned, Michael's family are considering whether to apply to the Bulgarian President for that consideration. The decision on whether or not such support for an application can be provided is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I understand that both he and his officials are aware of Michael's application to the Bulgarian authorities and are awaiting further information before making their decision on whether to support it. That information will come from, among others, Fair Trials Abroad. I hope that that will be sorted shortly, so that my right hon. Friend can make a decision. I hope that my hon. Friend will both pursue the matter directly with the Foreign Secretary and supply further information as requested.
	I have tried to indicate to my hon. Friend that my Department and others responsible for issues relating to Michael's welfare and condition have examined the matter seriously, and are attempting to ensure that his sentence is appropriate and that his well-being is maintained while he is in prison. We must examine still further the issue of representations to the Bulgarian authorities and the question of the royal prerogative of mercy. I am sure that both my hon. Friend and her constituent will be able to make further representations to the Government in due course about any concerns about Michael's position that are drawn to her attention.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will understand the Government's position, and I repeat my offer to write to her shortly about the application of the royal prerogative of mercy. I am grateful for the passion with which she has brought the matter to the House today, and I shall certainly reflect outside the Chamber on behalf of the Government on the points that she has raised.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 19 November 2007: In column 1067, Division No.5, in the Noes, delete "Burgon, Colin".